ReviewCancers2022
Speech and Language Errors during Awake Brain Surgery and Postoperative Language Outcome in Glioma Patients: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Awake craniotomy and language assessment in deaf patients: a systematic review of feasibility, communication strategies, and outcomes.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Connectome-guided glioma resection: a systematic review of white matter tract preservation and postoperative neurocognition.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Localization patterns of speech and language errors during awake brain surgery: a systematic review.Neurosurgical review · 2023Pooled it
- Speech-Language Pathology-Related Disorders in Adults with Brain Tumours: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Awake Glioma Surgery with Intraoperative Mapping: Predictors of Language Outcome and Survival.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of awake craniotomy versus general anesthesia for glioma resection: A systematic review.Surgical neurology international · 2026Review
- Separating the forest from the palm trees: Individual variation in a presurgical language mapping task.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2026Article
- How well can simple clinical features predict long-term language recovery after left-hemisphere glioma surgery?Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Perioperative Neurocognitive Function in Glioma Surgery.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- Integration of 3D-printed cerebral cortical tissue into an ex vivo lesioned brain slice.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Review
- Level I and II deficits-A clinical survey on international practice of awake craniotomy and definitions of postoperative "major" and "minor" deficits.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Awake craniotomy with direct electrical stimulation (DES) is the standard treatment for patients with gliomas in eloquent areas. Even though language is monitored carefully during surgery, many patients suffer from postoperative aphasia, with negative effects on their quality of life. Some perioperative factors are reported to influence postoperative language outcome. However, the influence of different intraoperative speech and language errors on language outcome is not clear. Therefore, we investigate this relation. A systematic search was performed in which 81 studies were included, reporting speech and language errors during awake craniotomy with DES and postoperative language outcomes in adult glioma patients up until 6 July 2020. The frequencies of intraoperative errors and language status were calculated. Binary logistic regressions were performed. Preoperative language deficits were a significant predictor for postoperative acute (OR = 3.42, p < 0.001) and short-term (OR = 1.95, p = 0.007) language deficits. Intraoperative anomia (OR = 2.09, p = 0.015) and intraoperative production errors (e.g., dysarthria or stuttering; OR = 2.06, p = 0.016) were significant predictors for postoperative acute language deficits. Postoperatively, the language deficits that occurred most often were production deficits and spontaneous speech deficits. To conclude, during surgery, intraoperative anomia and production errors should carry particular weight during decision-making concerning the optimal onco-functional balance for a given patient, and spontaneous speech should be monitored. Further prognostic research could facilitate intraoperative decision-making, leading to fewer or less severe postoperative language deficits and improvement of quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.